It's time to start a thread that encompasses all of these type of lenses. Though there have been threads in the past that have been devoted to the Isco 3L or Schneider 1.33 lenses, I think now is the time to start a new expanded thread to include all commercially available Cylindrical Anamorphic Lenses. Hopefully this can be a source of reference to all present and future owner's of these lens.

At the present time these are the lenses available and that make up this group.
Cavx MK4, Isco 3s, Isco 3L, Prismasonic HD6000, 1.33X, Schneider 1.33X M, Schneider 1.33X XL. The Isco 3s/Schneider 1.33X M and Isco 3L/Schneider 1.33X XL are identical except for the body. Prismasonic HD-6000.

The current mounts for the Isco lenses are the Tech Ht mounts which include the Cineslide/MultiStand 2 automated lens sled/lens mount system. A Tabletop mount/MultiStand 2 is also available for stationary lens mounting. These work for the Schneider lenses as well. Schneider also has their own lens mount systems available from their dealer network. Currently they have the Kino-Linear slide system, which is being discontinued, and the Kino-Torsion swing system. All of these systems have pitch, yaw and roll adjustments for precise lens alignment. The Cavx Mk4 comes with a stationary mount but should be able to be mounted to a Cineslide or Panamorph sled system.

The advantage of the cylindrical lens is that it works like a traditional camera lens. With the adjustable focus element, you have the ability to have perfect focus from edge to edge, top to bottom, side to side. Artifacts such as Astigmatism and Chromatic Aberration are a non-issue with these type of lenses. Essentially the image enters and leaves untouched with the exception of two things, it's horizontally expanded by 33% and there is a very slight amount of pincushion. Light loss from the lens is small and alleviated by the corresponding gain due to the increased pixel count of 33%.

Unfortunately, these lenses aren't readily available for viewing. Not to many dealers have these or any A-Lens available to demo. Hopefully this will be a place for those contemplating a purchase can go for reference, to ask questions or to be reassured as these lenses are very expensive, though worth every penny, in my opinion.

I've had a few people point out to me that my lens cost substantially more than my projector, so I thought I would address this. I bought my first FP in the summer of 2004, a Infocus X-1. In learned of the 4805 coming out the next month so made a switch. Fall of 2006 I stepped up to an Optoma HD72. Then my present FP, the Benq W5000, June of 2008. My point is I change FP's about every two years. The only component I change more is my DVD players. I've upgraded receivers along the way as new features were necessary and finally to a pre/pro. There are a few components that stay around a lot longer in my system, such as speakers. Now there are always exception but typically people hang on to that part of their systems more than players and such. My point is I'll spend a lot more on this than I would disc players because of this. I get more value out of it.

My first lens, the "classic' Panamorph P752 was purchased in 9/2004 and has served me well ever since. If I get that out of my new lens I will be satisfied. I expect this lens to last a lifetime worth of FP changeouts. So to answer the questions if I spent too much on the lens in relation to my current FP the answer is NO. Knowing and seeing what I have now, this lens will work with any price range of projector from $1500 and up. I realize budget wise these lens aren't for everyone. But those that have $2K or more to spend should seriously look into moving up to this type of lens, whether buying new or used. Its as close to future proof as there is.

Another thing. I heard people trying to quantifying the use of these lens with different types and resolutions of FP's. These len's will look the same regardless of spec's. You will get the same level of improvement whether you have a 720P, 1080P or a 2160P/4K FP. I've seen it first hand with all of the above and in each case it was the best solution. And this was the case regardless of source resolution.

Would it be ok to include the Isco 2 (although it's not a "pure" cylindrical design at all)?

I hope so, ich bin ein Isco II'er. I recently discovered that some pincusion I was noticing was actually caused by my projector not being perfectly square to my screen. As I'm in a very long throw setup I'm maximising the image quality from my 'II, so every little tweak helps.

I haven't got a sled as I tend to fit my lens if I know the film is 2.35/2.40:1 AR and I just switch to 16:9 using my Edge VP for trailers and menus. If I know the film is 1.85:1 then I don't fit my lens and just adjust the projector zoom slightly (the Isco II slightly increases the whole image, not just widthways).

I'm afraid my stand isn't very glamourous as it was intended to be a temporary test piece, but I put it away when I'm not using the projector, so it doesn't really matter too much.

Maybe we could include any A-Lens to expand this thread? I have both a Schneider X1.33 and a Prismasonic H-FE1500M. The mounting plate was designed to hold the lens and a Sony Pearl projector. Later I modified it for the Schneider lens. My throw is 2.22:1 into a 108' wide 2.37:1 screen. What I have learned is how critical the alignment is to get good results. The Schneider was easier to align than the Prismasonic but it took some time.

I think a prism lens is a ground lens? At least the high quality lenses are. Maybe not DIY lenses but I would consider the Primasonic lens a quality lens. My reasoning is after a week there have not been that many replies so why not widen the scope of the thread to get more comments?

I recently discovered that some pincusion I was noticing was actually caused by my projector not being perfectly square to my screen. As I'm in a very long throw setup I'm maximising the image quality from my 'II, so every little tweak helps.

When I had both my ISCO III and Panamorph UH480 and was swapping them back and forth in front of a BenQ W20000, one of the major things that I found was that alignment is highly important to minimizing geometric distortion. The first step is to make sure that the projector is as perfectly normal to the screen as possible - any sort of keystoning will cause the pincushion to be lopsided in at least one axis. After that, aligning the lens so that it is completely parallel to the light path is just as critical. Taking the extra time to do this produced some really stunning pictures with almost no pincushion.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

When I had both my ISCO III and Panamorph UH480 and was swapping them back and forth in front of a BenQ W20000, one of the major things that I found was that alignment is highly important to minimizing geometric distortion. The first step is to make sure that the projector is as perfectly normal to the screen as possible - any sort of keystoning will cause the pincushion to be lopsided in at least one axis. After that, aligning the lens so that it is completely parallel to the light path is just as critical. Taking the extra time to do this produced some really stunning pictures with almost no pincushion.

It's funny you should mention that most basic of steps. After aligning everything to the nth degree, to the millimeter I had that very thing on the right side of my picture. After 3 hrs of triple checking everything I checked and keystone was set at 1. There's a lost movie I'll never get back. Sound advice HP. Take the time to line everything up and double check all menu's and it will save you alot on the back end

I think a prism lens is a ground lens? At least the high quality lenses are. Maybe not DIY lenses but I would consider the Primasonic lens a quality lens. My reasoning is after a week there have not been that many replies so why not widen the scope of the thread to get more comments?

What GetGray means is cylindrical optics Vs prisms. Yes both are "ground" glass and both can be spec'd to give the same S/D figures and even use the same optic coatings. The difference is the shape of the optics and the in-ability of a prisms lens to be "focused". Prism lenses rely on their "astigmatism" or "focal" correctors to allow corner to corner focus of the image. The current range of "correctors" on the market are also single glass lenses, so the optics are therefore fixed and not adjustable. It is the ability to adjust the optics that set cylindrical anamorphic lenses apart from prisms anamorphic adapters.

I wish there was a 'thanks' button on this forum, to save adding another post. Anyway, thanks for the information and the installation pictures. It seems my 'II looks different to the one in the comparison picture (though mine clearly says '16:9 Video Attachment II' on the front, so I don't think I got a 'III by mistake. I'm looking forward to the 'scope next film I watch since I discovered my alignment issue, but I'll also need to recheck the Isco adjustments as well. I might have to buy myself a cheap pair of binoculars so I can adjust the lens and view the crosshatches more closely.

Last night I spent some taking some light readings for comparison. I ran several readings at various bulb settings, iris settings and with and without the lens. Theoretically there should be a 33% gain of light with the lens in compared to using the zoom method. I took multiple readings with both lux and fc and came up with 304 w/lens and 294 lumens w/o lens. The small difference is probably because of the differences of 2.35/2.37. There's no measurable light loss with this lens. What this means is that the difference between not using a lens and using one is the same as going from a 92" screen to a 106" and having the same light level. This of course is a huge benefit when counting lumens for large screens.

Over the course of taking these measurement I came up with a couple formulas for figuring light needed for certain size screens. I know that question is asked frequently. The few givens are that your using a 2.35 screen with one of these lenses. I didn't add in for screen loss or gain. These are for 1.0 neutral gain screens but it's easy to figure in for screen loss or gain. These will hopefully make quick work of matching projectors and screens. Target flts(footLamberts) is typically 12-16. You can use 12 as a baseline. That's bright in a light controlled room. These were done in short time so there could be room for improvement. I actually used to be quite handy figuring load calc's as I have a C20/C38. But working for the world's largest telecom for the last eleven years has fried my brain.

It's time to start a thread that encompasses all of these type of lenses. Though there have been threads in the past that have been devoted to the Isco 3L or Schneider 1.33 lenses, I think now is the time to start a new expanded thread to include all commercially available Cylindrical Anamorphic Lenses. Hopefully this can be a source of reference to all present and future owner's of these lens.

At the present time these are the lenses available and that make up this group.
Cavx MK4, Isco 3s, Isco 3L, Schneider 1.33X, Schneider 1.33X M, Schneider 1.33X XL. The Isco 3s/Schneider 1.33X M and Isco 3L/Schneider 1.33X XL are identical except for the body.

The current mounts for the Isco lenses are the Tech Ht mounts which include the Cineslide/MultiStand 2 automated lens sled/lens mount system. A Tabletop mount/MultiStand 2 is also available for stationary lens mounting. These work for the Schneider lenses as well. Schneider also has their own lens mount systems available from their dealer network. Currently they have the Kino-Linear slide system, which is being discontinued, and the Kino-Torsion swing system. All of these systems have pitch, yaw and roll adjustments for precise lens alignment. The Cavx Mk4 comes with a stationary mount but should be able to be mounted to a Cineslide or Panamorph sled system.

The advantage of the cylindrical lens is that it works like a traditional camera lens. With the adjustable focus element, you have the ability to have perfect focus from edge to edge, top to bottom, side to side. Artifacts such as Astigmatism and Chromatic Aberration are a non-issue with these type of lenses. Essentially the image enters and leaves untouched with the exception of two things, it's horizontally expanded by 33% and there is a very slight amount of pincushion. Light loss from the lens is small and alleviated by the corresponding gain due to the increased pixel count of 33%.

Unfortunately, these lenses aren't readily available for viewing. Not to many dealers have these or any A-Lens available to demo. Hopefully this will be a place for those contemplating a purchase can go for reference, to ask questions or to be reassured as these lenses are very expensive, though worth every penny, in my opinion.

Great idea.
I think my lense has actually gone UP in value.
A rarity for anything in consumer electronics.